 Works, meat for repentance. Now it's very important going into this that you don't confuse Paul's works, meat for repentance with John the Baptist's fruits, meat for repentance. A lot of people get those two things confused. So they'll quote John the Baptist as saying works, meat, but John the Baptist didn't say works. He said fruit, and fruit is not work. Fruit is the product of work. So don't get those two things confused. So when I say works, meat for repentance, I'm not referring to John the Baptist's preaching. I am, of course, referring to what Paul said in Acts chapter 26. And so it's in verse 20 of this chapter that it says, But, referring to Paul, showed first onto them of Damascus and at Jerusalem and throughout all the coasts of Judea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God and do works, meat for repentance. And so this is an example of repentance and works accompanying each other. Now previously in the series, when we've looked at, for example, Mark 115, repent and believe the gospel, we see that belief was the context. There's no works paired for repentance. In this instance, we do have works paired with repentance. It'd be pretty hard to argue otherwise. So this is the verse that has potential to cause some confusion for some of the brethren. So people in defense of grace might try and answer this in various ways. For example, he was just telling people to live holy lives so that they would lead other people to Christ. Or, you know, it's just about living out your identity in Christ. Or they might say that repentance in this verse is not really about salvation. Well, it will hopefully make more sense in the video. Obviously, this is a verse that legalists use to prove that repentance does have to have works if it is genuine. So the first thing that I want to point out, as I always do, is that it doesn't actually say repent of your sins. There is no mention of sin in this verse. Now, there might be somebody out there watching who says, well, my Bible does actually say repent of their sins. Well, if it does, you are probably reading the new living translation of this verse, which does actually say repent of their sins. Or, although it's far less likely, you could be reading the clear word translation, which is actually not a translation. It's a paraphrase written to support Seventh-day Adventist doctrine, which sadly I have to pay for because I couldn't find an online version. The money grabbers don't want God's word to go out freely, apparently. And besides other liberties that they take with this verse, as you can see there on the screen, they also say repent of their sins in this translation. These are just two translations that I know of that do this. Most Bibles, such as the NIV, the ESV, or the New King James, they will just say repent in this verse because the Greek does not have of their sins. You can look up the verse on Bible Hub and look at all the Greek words that were translated into English. You won't find any Greek word representing sin or its synonyms. There are other Bible translations which also take liberties in this verse to still promote the idea of repenting of sins or reforming your life. But this subject really does need its own video at some point in the series, so I'm not going to labor on that particular issue in this video. So we could end the video right there. The verse does not say of your sins. So if people will use this verse to teach repent of sins, or even that it proves that repent means to turn from sin because of the word works, well then they are proving that repenting of sins for salvation is a works-based salvation. Otherwise, why would they go to this verse at all? So according to the King James Bible and the underlying Greek, this verse does say repent, but it does not say of your sins. Anybody who claims that repenting of sins is not work salvation has no right whatsoever to use this verse to promote their doctrine because it does mention works, but it does not mention sins. Paul does not mention the doing of sins during this dialogue in Acts chapter 26. He only mentions the forgiveness of sins. Very similar to Acts chapter 2 and 3. The assertion that Paul's works meet for repentance is about turning from sin is utter conjecture. In this dialogue, Paul does not specify what these works meet for repentance are. He didn't make it clear that he meant turning from sin. He could have been preaching about other works such as, for example, preaching the gospel or searching the scriptures or praying with other believers and planting church fellowships who were you to say that he didn't mean those things instead. Before we study Paul's message, then, we need to ask ourselves the question. Are these works necessary for repentance? Or do they prove genuine repentance? Or, you know, is repentance genuine if it doesn't include these works being accompanied? In the King James, there is a separation of the repentance and the works in that Paul lists them with conjunctions. However, there is a discrepancy here because modern Bibles don't actually include the conjunction before works. Now, as I mentioned, modern Bibles do seem to be taking a lot of liberties with this verse and butchering it, but there is something to be said for the way that some of the more accurate translations render the ending of this verse, such as in the ESV, repent and turn to God performing deeds. So this is considered to be more faithful to the Greek, according to people that apparently understand these things, because in the Greek, there are only three conjunctions, which I've painted in green for you on the screen there, whereas in the King James, we actually have four conjunctions. So the King James puts in an extra conjunction and strangely doesn't italicise it, but if you look at an interlinear Bible, you will see that the Greek order of words is so different from the English. It's not like you can just translate it word for word anyway, because it wouldn't make any grammatical sense in English. So there could be some justification as to why the King James Bible translated it this way. So as I've stated before in this series, I don't speak Greek, so I can't really contend for the King James and criticise the ESV. I don't think we can easily argue that the ESV is wrong, per se, but it could leave us confused because the present continual tense makes it look like these deeds are a part of the repentance itself, rather than something that ought to accompany repentance. And again, a lot of modern Bibles that are not as formally equivalent as the ESV or the New King James, they take so many liberties with this verse and deliberately mistranslate it to say that the works themselves are the repentance. But again, I'll have to cover that in another video. Let's just get some background before we study the scriptures. In Chapter 25, Paul was falsely accused by Jews and the high priest himself had made complaints against Paul to the authorities. Festus, willing to do the Jews pleasure, suggested to bring Paul to Jerusalem to be tried, but Paul appealed to be tried in Caesarea. King Agrippa is summoned to judge over this matter, so in Acts 26, Agrippa enables Paul to defend himself against the accusations of the Jews at Jerusalem. So Paul's opening statement here, in verse 2, is that he is answering for himself to Agrippa, who appears to be familiar with Jewish customs and questions. Let's get one thing straight here. Paul was not preaching repentance in Acts 26. I have known false prophets and their pet goats use this passage as an example of Paul preaching repentance, but he wasn't. He was defending himself to King Agrippa, referring back to something that happened between himself and other people at Jerusalem and Damascus some time before this, and we'll wind back to when this happened earlier in the book of Acts later. Between verses 4 and 5, Paul points out that he was a Pharisee since his youth from the very strictest sect of the Jewish religion. But then in verses 6 and 7, he now has the hope of the promise that was given to the 12th tribes, or you might paraphrase that and say Old Testament Jews perhaps, and yet he is being accused by the Jews for this hope's sake. So we see what Paul was explaining here. Jesus is the Holy One that was promised to the Old Covenant Jews. Jesus came, and this has already happened in the past now, so Paul now hopes in that promise, yet he is being persecuted by the Jews for the one that they should have been hoping for. In verses 8 and 9, Paul then alludes to the resurrection of Christ, arguing that the resurrection should not be that incredible for God to do, yet Paul himself liked the Jews that persecuted him, once did things that were contrary to the name of Jesus, and he's about to explain what these things were in the next verse. So in verses 10 and 11, he points out that he himself once persecuted believers and preachers of Jesus as he is now being persecuted by other Jews. Between verses 12 to 16, he recounts his journey to Damascus, whereby he heard Jesus' voice and quotes things said between them. This is a recall of what happened in Acts chapter 9, so we will also need to review this chapter as well to understand chapter 26. Now, interestingly, in verses 17 to 18, we do have some dialogue that's not actually available from chapter 9, and this is crucial dialogue here, because this is the closest thing in Acts chapter 26 that we have to define Paul's message of repentance that he is describing, that Jesus sent Paul to preach to the Gentiles that he has previously persecuted, and see that he was being told to preach, to open their eyes, to turn them from darkness to light, from the power of Satan onto God, receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among them, which are sanctified in faith that is in me. So this is how Paul is defining his message of repentance to the Gentiles before a gripper and fester, people that were in darkness and under the power of Satan, that they should repent towards the light and turn to God for the forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among those that are sanctified by faith in Christ. Now, legalists might assert that, well, it does say turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan onto God, so this means turn from sin, because if you sin, you're still in darkness and still under the power of Satan. But this is begging the question, in other words, asserting the facts without evidence. Because just as the legalists say, well, it means turn from sin, we could just say, well, it means change what you believe. What you believe is currently keeping you in darkness, and what you believe is keeping you under the power of Satan, and the sanctified are by faith. But I would also be begging the question, because you can't ascertain the definition of those things from that verse alone. So what exactly does Paul mean by these terms then? Acts chapter 26 doesn't seem to make it very clear. Well, we do get some hints about it from later in this chapter, and we will refer back to previous chapters in Acts that tie in with this when we carry on reading. So Paul explains that he was not disobedient to the vision. So the vision led him to go to Damascus and to Jerusalem, where he would preach to repent, turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. So Paul was then persecuted by the Jews for what he was preaching in verse 21. Then in verse 22 he said that he was witnessing nothing more other than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come. So it's the times, the events, and the person that these prophets were pointing us to that Paul is witnessing about. And in verse 23 this is what he was witnessing, that Christ should suffer and that he should be the first to rise from the dead and should show light unto the people and to the Gentiles. This is the phraseology that was used in verse 17, when he talked about opening their eyes and turning from darkness to light. They are being shown light and verse 18 open their eyes, turn from darkness to light. This is the light that Paul was showing them, Christ suffering onto death and resurrection. So this is giving us a clue about what Paul meant here. He came to show the people and the Gentiles the light, that it was Christ who suffered and was the first to rise from the dead. He was the one that Moses and the prophets were pointing us to. So Paul was sent to preach that message so as to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light. Turn them towards the Christ who suffered and rose again. Notice that he doesn't say, hey the Son of God came down and he was entirely without sin and he kept preaching repentance all the time and warning of God's wrath to come. So I was sent to open their eyes and turn them from darkness and repent of their sins. That's not what Paul said. So in verses 24 to 25, Thestas accuses Paul of being mad in a loud voice. Paul rejects this obviously. And so in verses 26 to 28 we read, for the king knoweth of these things, before whom I also speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him, for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believe you the prophets, I know that you believe. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, almost you persuade me to be a Christian. Now some people might be thinking, well what about when Jesus said, if you would have believed Moses and the prophets, you would have believed me. King Agrippa is a sort of an almost but not quite. So how can Paul say that he believed the prophets? Well if we want to get all technical and specific and theological, then sure we could kind of argue in a roundabout way that he didn't believe the prophets maybe. And we can have that kind of discussion round a table. But that's sort of Christian philosophizing. Paul is just really being practical here. He knows that to some extent at least, Agrippa appears to have some awareness and some faith or belief of some kind in Old Testament prophets. Paul is then pointing him to these events, Christ's suffering and rising again, because he is the one that Moses and the prophets were pointing Agrippa towards. And as Paul said, none of these things are hidden or done in a corner. This has all happened publicly. Agrippa ought to have some awareness of these things. And so the chapter comes to an end. Paul wishes that they would hear him and be together as he is, which is perhaps a euphemism for being part of the brotherhood. They then sat and talked between themselves, and we don't have any more dialogue recorded. So we're not sure if Agrippa was truly persuaded. Maybe he was an almost but not quite. But in any case, they don't really find anything wrong with what Paul said. Notice how they didn't say, hey Paul, you've been screaming in the streets preaching against sin. You're really rattling the cage of everybody out there and disturbing the peace. We're going to have to arrest you. Now I'm sure that's what these streets screaming bozos like Jesse Morel wishes would have happened. It would certainly stroke their ego, wouldn't it? But it didn't happen. That's not what they were accusing enough. So now that we've got that out of the way, we need to rewind. Acts chapter nine is what Paul is referring back to, because this is where he had that heavenly vision that he was speaking about in this chapter. And he met with the Lord and then he went down to Jerusalem and Damascus to preach. So that will give us some indication of his message of repentance being recalled in chapter 26. Between verses one and nine of chapter nine is where Paul or Saul saw the vision of the Lord on his journey near Damascus. Notice something very interesting between verses four and five. Jesus questions Paul about persecuting him. Why persecute you, me? And Paul actually reflects on this in Galatians chapter one, saying that he used to persecute the church, but then God called him by grace and revealed the Son. And so notice then Paul asked Jesus what to do in verse six. And notice what Jesus said, Arise and go into the city and it shall be told to you what you must do. And what really grinds my gears about this passage is that even though Paul had been sinning by persecuting the church, Jesus forgot to tell him to repent of his sins to be saved first. Surely that is the first thing that Paul must do. Paul liked to tell the Galatians church about how he was called by God's grace after persecuting the church, but seems to miss out talking about his sackcloth and ashes repentant lifestyle. Too many people love to preach grace and don't like to preach repentance from sin these days. So between verses seven to fourteen, Paul journeys to Damascus, meeting with Ananias, who had to pray about it, fearing the persecution of Saul. Ananias then met with Paul in verses 17 to 18, and Paul was filled with the Holy Ghost and was baptized. But wait a second. Ananias also forgot to tell Paul to repent of his sins. Oh, I can't believe this. No wonder Paul preached about sinning in the flesh in Roman seven and loved to talk about grace all the time. He never completed his repentance from sins. Maybe the Hebrew roots movement is right. We ought to totally reject Paul's apostleship. And so in verses 19 and 20, he received the meat. He was strengthened. Then he was certain days with the disciples that were in Damascus, and straight away he preached repentance in the synagogues that they should turn from their iniquities. Oh wait, that's not what Paul preached. He actually preached Christ in the synagogues that he is the Son of God. Carry on in verse 21 of the people were amazed that somebody who previously persecuted the church is now preaching alongside them. And in doing so, he confounded the Jews at Damascus by proving that this is the very Christ. He doesn't say he confounded the Jews by pointing out all of their unrepentant sins. We then read that the Jews took counsel to kill him. Now then, what was their motivation to kill Paul? We have seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever so far that Paul preached Hellfire damnation message against sin to the Jews. We have seen that he preached Christ. That is the reason why he was persecuted. He was not being persecuted for being a street screaming bozo at a pride parade. I know that's what Jesse Morellon gave the street preacher wishes would have happened, but it wasn't. You then carry on reading towards the end of the chapter. Paul goes to Jerusalem. The other disciples were initially afraid of him, but then they realized he had seen the Lord and preached the name of Jesus at Damascus. And while he was going in and out of Jerusalem, he spoke boldly in the name of Jesus, disputing against the Greeks. Once again, it mentions the name of Jesus, but doesn't mention any message of repentance from sin. After this, we don't really hear about Paul for another two chapters at which point he's no longer at Jerusalem. He was at Tarsus. So we've had no repent of sins message so far. The only thing Paul has preached about that we know of in Jerusalem and Damascus is Christ. So we can't even use the story from chapter 9 that Paul was recording in chapter 26 to interpret works meet for repentance because we've got nothing to go on from this story. He doesn't tell us what these works were. But then you might wonder, what about Acts chapter 22? Before and similarly to chapter 26, Paul also recalled the chapter 9 story in chapter 22. Let's take a brief look. So in chapter 22 between verses 113, Paul recalls what we have read. He went to Damascus, saw the Lord, went blind, met Ananias, received his sight again. And Paul recalls some dialogue with Ananias that we don't get from chapter 9. Ananias points out that God has chosen him to know the will of God, see the just one, and hear his voice. And this is for a purpose, that Paul shall be his witness onto men of what you have seen and heard. Now then, why is this important? Inevitably when you listen to these repent of sins to be saved types, maybe not so much the Calvinists or the Reform types, but particularly the Arminianists and Pentecostals and Sinless Perfectionists particularly. They like to emphasise their testimony when they give the Gospel about how they've turned from all of their sins and they've given everything up to Jesus. This was of course a notable theme in my recently published documentary. And we saw how these people exalt themselves and their, hey, look at me and my repentance, self-exalting preaching. But you can see a stark difference between how repent of sins preachers give their testimony. It's always about themselves and their accomplishments and I turned from all my sins and I surrendered my life and it's always really poetic and dramatic and sensational. Yet Paul was to be a witness of all the things he saw and heard. What did he see in here? Well, having previously been a persecutor of the Church, the Lord revealed himself to Paul and then sent Paul to go and preach Jesus. And that's exactly what Paul did. There was no mention of turning his life around or getting on his knees and praying for three hours every day until he reached a place of full surrender. He was just called and sent to preach Christ and he said it using a fairly mundane choice of words. Moving on then, Paul recalls how Ananias baptized him and washed away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Ananias did not ask Paul to prove the fruits of his repentance to make sure his repentance was genuine. Ananias did not fruit inspect Paul. Hearing the voice of God, he already knew that Paul was chosen for his purpose to preach Christ and instruct Paul to be baptized because there was no reason for delay. Now, this video is not meant to address the whole controversies of whether water baptism is required for salvation or the whole verbal asking to be saved issue that's a bit of a hot potato at the moment. But many legalists, they take statements like wash away your sins or cleanse us from our sins and redefine it as meaning you've stopped sinning now or you sin less now because you have changed lifestyle. But again, this is begging the question, asserting that that's what cleansing sin means without any evidence that that's what it means. There were examples in the Psalms where David uses this terminology about being cleansed from sin or washed from sin, but he's still sinned after he prayed those prayers. Between verses 17 to 21, Paul describes how he used to persecute those that believed on the Christ, yet now he himself was called to preach which as the Jews would persecute him also, possibly more so, he was sent instead to the Gentiles in verse 21. So once again, we have no context on this chapter to define what these works meet for repentance are that legalists love to bang on about all the time. The Bible doesn't even define what Paul was talking about when he made this statement, it seems to be so unimportant in the grand scheme of things. When we look at the clear dialogue available to us about what Paul did preach, we can see that he preached Christ. We can't see that he preached a transformed lifestyle of complete and total surrender. Even his testimony is about Jesus calling him to preach Jesus, not about his radically altered lifestyle. So the most context we have available for the message of repentance is that Paul preached Christ, not lifestyle change. The Bible doesn't tell us what these works meet for repentance were, but it must be in this sentence for a reason though. Remember that Paul is defending himself to secular judges because he was being falsely accused because he knew of the Jewish customs and questions and he was an expert in these things, yet he was preaching Christ who was promised to the Jews, yet they rejected him, the one that God had promised to them. So all he's really doing in this chapter is he's simply explaining to a gripper a summation of what happened at Damascus and at Jerusalem. So in essence we could argue that what he's saying here is, look, a gripper. I am a Jew. I'm being persecuted by the Jews for preaching the one that God has promised and sent to my persecutors. All I did was go around telling them to turn to Christ and do works meet for repentance. I didn't tell them that they were all horrible evil wicked sinners and adulterers and drunkards. I know that's what Jesse Morrell wishes I would have said, but I didn't. I didn't tell them that our true king is here so let's all rise up and take over the land and overthrow the Roman emperor so that this guy can rule over the Roman empire and be the new king. Again, that's not what I said to those people. I didn't tell them to start a riot and free themselves from the yoke of the Roman authorities. I wasn't causing any deliberate disturbance to the peace. I just told people to repent towards this Jesus the Christ, turn towards him and do works meet for repentance. So that's really the substance of what he was saying, that he wasn't going around causing trouble or deliberately rattling people's cages. The Jews are just making much ado about nothing. Let's now look at how this verse is worded. He instructed them to do works that are meet for repentance. Another way of wording this might be works befitting for repentance, works appropriate for repentance. It would be meaningless to do these works without the repentance. If one hasn't repented, there is no point to these works. If one has repented, then there must be a point to these works because they are meet for those who have repented. This is why it's works meet for repentance, works that are appropriate and applicable to such persons who have repented. If you haven't repented, no point in asking you to do these works. If you have repented, well then it would be a good idea for you to do these works. Okay, so perhaps you're thinking, well what kinds of works and meet for people who have repented because the Bible still hasn't told us what these are. It's perfectly plausible that alongside some of the works that Paul may have told people to do, that he could have included turning from sins in some cases, or at least an instruction to start doing some good that they weren't doing before. Now again, some modern translation to the Bible butcher this verse to make the works the repentance itself, so that the works are the cause of all the precursor to repentance. Whereas the King James is giving us quite the opposite impression, it's works are an afterthought. So once the repentance is complete, then we can consider these works that are appropriate for repentance. Many legalists might say that the works are an inevitable result of repentance, but if that were so, Paul wouldn't even need to tell them to do works meet for repentance. The fact that Paul needs to specifically tell them implies that it is not inevitable or automatic. But if we just stick to the simple King James Bible's translation, those works are meet or befitting or appropriate for people who have repented. Now let's just say for the sake of argument that among the works that Paul did instruct repenting converts to do, he told some of them to turn from various sins, let's just say that he did for the sake of argument. This is perfectly reasonable because like Paul says in 2 Timothy 2 19, let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity. Who is being told to depart from iniquity? Those that name the name of Christ. So this implies that such people are already naming Christ. These are not prospective or potential converts or sinners who have yet to be saved. This is already built on the premise that the Lord already knows those who belong to him. They ought to be the ones who name the name of Christ and so therefore let those people depart from their iniquity. So let me ask you this, do you name the name of Christ? You who's watching my video. If you say yes I do, well okay then, depart from your iniquity, do works meet for repentance? But if you're listening and saying well no I don't name the name of Christ, well don't bother then, don't depart from iniquity, don't waste your time doing works meet for repentance, why bother? Go home, eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. This just shows why these street screaming bozos are so ridiculous because if people walk away from you screaming and yelling and they're not interested in believing the gospel, what's the point in you standing there telling them to turn from their sins or do works meet for repentance? What difference is it going to make? You know there's nothing more time wasting and pointless than attending some death metal concert or some LGBT pride parade screaming repent of your sins, it doesn't matter what they do, it's a waste of time. If they reject Jesus, so what if they stop being gay or stop going to rock concerts? It doesn't make any difference whatsoever whether they do those things or don't do those things. As I have already stressed, we cannot conclusively say what works Paul commanded of them. But there are plenty of perfectly plausible examples and highly likely scenarios we could propose of the kind of works that Paul may have commanded. Not that those works are some kind of precursor to repentance, nor that they are necessarily proof of genuine repentance but at the very least are meat or befitting or appropriate for repentance. Now in my personal opinion and I stress a point of making this because opinions are not infallible and I could be wrong but given the premise that Paul could be persecuted by much of the Jewish populace for preaching Christ in Jerusalem and Damascus and Jesus had already warned the disciples about this before his own death when he sent them out to preach two by two at various towns and we have seen this previously in the series when looking at deny self and the unrepentant cities. Paul probably instructed them to do works somehow in relation to this. For example, don't persecute those who preach Christ, welcome them and receive them. The disciples were likewise previously instructed abide at those houses that would receive them and publicly profess your belief calling upon the name of the Lord in the presence of other believers and be baptized as Ananias also told Paul to do after previously being concerned about how Paul had persecuted the saints prior. So Paul getting baptized and calling upon the Lord with a verbal confession before men if you like proves to the saints that were afraid of him that know he is actually on our side now. Jesus also commented on how Jews would be afraid of his name being preached and afraid to confess him before men because of being put at variance with their family members and communities. We've seen that previously in the series. But we're quite disconnected from Paul's circumstances in this day and age so let me give you an example that's perhaps more modern and more relatable. You may remember brother James from the documentary and from a standalone interview that I published on my channel. Well we've done door-to-door soul-winning together at The Does and he usually does most of the talking because he can talk for England and I'm not really a big talker outside of my videos anyway. I'm not really very good at improv so we tend to leave James to do most of the talking. So what James would do is if someone at The Door was seemingly receptive at the house we'll give the royal gospel, right? You know it's believe, it's buy faith and that works, it's Christ who died for us, etc etc etc. and then at the end of his presentation he'll say you know if the person seems really receptive and it seems like they accept the testimony of Christ that we've brought to them we'll give them some extra information and instructions for edification and in some cases that might include doing some works or turning from sins. So James might say okay look here's the Bible we encourage you to start reading it here's some online material that you can find for more edification check that out and he might say hey maybe one day you might like to come with us and go preaching door-to-door with us one day and get other people saved so you see how we're encouraging them to do works and there was one time where somebody had a Buddha statue on the shelf so you know it might be that maybe if they've been previously a Catholic or whatever you might want to confront them about some idol in the house or something but he only gets to that stage after he's already established that the gospel is without works so we've already got them to understand that it's by grace it's not by works it's by believing after they've understood that then we can say hey start doing this and hey check this out and hey maybe one day you'd like to do this with us and hey maybe that's not a good idea so hopefully you see then how his preaching works meet for repentance not works for repentance works that are appropriate for repentance but repentance itself is without works and we've already made that very very clear if we encounter somebody at the door who's a Christ hating atheist we're not going to tell them to start reading the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and find a local church to start cleaning up their life because we don't really give a damn whether they do those things or not it makes no difference whatsoever and if they reject Jesus turning from those things or doing those things is not going to help them anyway and actually I'd rather the unsaved people who hate God didn't go to church because I don't want to fellowship with these people but obviously if somebody is receptive but maybe hesitant or curious for more information well then we might just give them more information rather than just bombarding them with stuff to start doing so it really just depends on who you're dealing with so in conclusion yes Paul preached works meet for repentance not that works are required for repentance or that they necessarily prove genuine repentance but that these works are relevant and appropriate for such people who have repented or maybe might repent the Bible does not consider it an important enough subject to directly tell us what those works were that Paul was talking about obviously false prophets just pluck and cherry pick random verses and make their own definition but the Bible doesn't tell us directly the closest definition we can find to his preaching on repentance was about Jesus not about you and yet again we keep seeing this in the series it's perfectly plausible that salvation is by grace not requiring any works at all that repentance is a turning of faith to the Savior without any proof of lifestyle change yet at the same time it is appropriate to teach those who have repented to do certain works for their edification and because it's meet for them to do so for example that others may see their good works and glorify God good works are in of themselves good as long as they are decoupled from salvation because grace excludes works just because many of you watching this may have been hurt by work salvation in the past this does not mean that you need to be afraid of works in of themselves or afraid of provoking fellow believers to do good works as part of holding fast the profession of our faith as Hebrews describes look the Bible is in exhaustive it contains lots of information it deals with many subjects not all of them are about how to be saved so yes we understand that grace is without works but that doesn't mean that it's wrong to preach doing good works the disciples did that themselves this is no nonsense Christianity reminding you that nowhere in the Bible does it say repent of your sins to be saved